The trinity doctrine is a lie.

Author: Mall
Religion
truth
faith
church
2026

Posts

Total: 77
#31
greensticks
greensticks's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 18
0
0
0
greensticks's avatar
greensticks
0
0
0
-->
@zedvictor4
I absolutely did fall for all of the old Bible stuff. For two main reasons:

1) without God life feels… empty for lack of a better world. Whether we realize it or not we all have a God shaped hole in our hearts that we’re constantly trying to fill

2) if we look at all of the world’s religions, Christianity is far and away the religion most backed by modern archaeology. 
#32
greensticks
greensticks's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 18
0
0
0
greensticks's avatar
greensticks
0
0
0
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
But who are we to define morality? In an ideological framework without God, it is impossible for you to claim that any action by Yahweh is “immoral” because whose standards are you judging by. Whereas I as a Christian can just have Faith that whatever God does is for the greater good.

Also you seem to misunderstand how the Trinity works. The Trinity IS Yahweh, they’re not separate. Jesus is one of the persons of the trinity along with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Also you keep making these wild claims that women ARE Satan or something similar but not only is this claim misogynistic it also has no grounding in any reliable religious text ever. If you have any sources to back that claim up please reply with them. 

Also to your claim that the Bible contains some logic when you disregard the supernatural… that claim is partially true but also the Bible’s MOST CENTRAL claim is entirely predicated on a single supernatural event - Jesus’s resurrection. If the resurrection didn’t happen then the claim that Gods Love and forgiveness is greater than sin and death has no basis and we all go to hell.

Despite all of that salvation is offered to ALL PEOPLE. God will work for YOUR well being too if you just accept Him. It’s never too late and you’re never too far. Anyways what would convince you?
#33
greensticks
greensticks's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 18
0
0
0
greensticks's avatar
greensticks
0
0
0
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
Dude that interpretation takes the verse completely out of context. Jesus wasn’t making a theological statement about human divinity - he was making a defensive legal argument in the middle of a debate where people were literally about to stone him.
He was quoting Psalm 82 to point out that even Jewish scripture uses the word ‘gods’ for fallible human judges, so calling himself Son of God shouldn’t be considered blasphemy. It was a rhetorical move, not a doctrinal claim. If you read the whole passage in John 10 the intent is pretty clear.
#34
greensticks
greensticks's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 18
0
0
0
greensticks's avatar
greensticks
0
0
0
-->
@zedvictor4
This is a genuinely dumb criticism because you’re basically saying: “this miracle couldn’t have happened because it’s naturally impossible.” Like yeah bro… that’s kinda the point of miracles. Yeah the entire point of her being known as the “Virgin Mary” is because usually virgins don’t have kids.
#35
greensticks
greensticks's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 18
0
0
0
greensticks's avatar
greensticks
0
0
0
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
You asked 
“Who is Yahweh's feminine side and the source of all evil if not Satan?”

But the biblical God is implied to be perfect - Not masculine or feminine per se. Genesis claims that mankind is created in God’s image “both male and female he created them”. This verse very clearly implies that women are also created in God’s image or in other words that God Isn’t just purely “masculine” per se.

There is literally zero evidence in the Bible that Satan is somehow God‘s feminine side or something. However, if you have evidence to support your claim, would you like to provide that for me, please? 

#36
greensticks
greensticks's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 18
0
0
0
greensticks's avatar
greensticks
0
0
0
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
You said “United in cause??? B.S.

Yahweh says my just rewards and wages for my sins is death.

Jesus says that if I sin and abdicate my responsibility for my sins, I am saved. 

The messianic concept of punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is is quite immoral and unjust. Right?

If Yahweh has good justice, Jesus reversing it must be evil.”

let’s imagine that I’m a judge, but I’m also your best friend. Now let’s say you commit a small crime - maybe speeding. Now you’re taking to court – specifically my courtroom. Now, as a judge, I believe in justice And in our legal system, so I Sentence you To whatever the punishment for that speeding ticket might be let’s say it’s a $1000 fine. But then let’s say You’re struggling financially and you ask me to lend you $1000 so you could pay off that fine. And then as a friend, I help you and give you $1000. Does that make me dual minded? No, because I believe in justice, but I also believe in helping my best friend out. In those two things can exist simultaneously.

Now this definitely isn’t a perfect analogy, but hopefully this helps. I mean, if anything, my analogy kind of undersells it. Jesus didn’t just pay a fine, he absorbed something more like a death sentence.

Anyways hopefully you can now understand how God the father and God the son can be united in cause Even when one judges and another takes the punishment for you. Because when Jesus died on the cross, he wasn’t just making the punishment for your sins, poof into thin air - He was taking the punishment on himself. He was metaphorically lending you $1000. 



And again, when I say you, I’m not just talking about the general “you”. I mean, you specifically. God loves you specifically just like he loves me specifically and every single individual in the world and it’s never too late to come to him.

#37
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 9,067
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@greensticks
The choice is yours.
"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"
#38
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 410
2
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
2
2
3
-->
@greensticks
Tell your creator to stop creating evil.

That is Satanic of him or in fact, her, given that the feminine is the root of all evil.

Remember that supernatural thinking is p poor thinking.

It make immoral people adore a genocidal God.
#39
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 410
2
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
2
2
3
-->
@greensticks
Pathetic piece of moral garbage.

It is never good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. You know this.

Jesus calls upon us to carry our crosses and follow him. But you would rather ride him as your scape goat.



#40
greensticks
greensticks's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 18
0
0
0
greensticks's avatar
greensticks
0
0
0
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop

You said:

Tell your creator to stop creating evil.

That is Satanic of him or in fact, her, given that the feminine is the root of all evil.

Remember that supernatural thinking is p poor thinking.

It make immoral people adore a genocidal God.

 The problem with this argument is that you keep making claims with absolutely no evidence. 

What evidence is there that the Feminine is the root of all evil? Why do you keep saying that is? Like how do you know? Where do you get that claim from? Is it from the Bible? Some other holy book? Or did you make it up?

Or how do you know that “supernatural thinking is poor thinking?” Where does this assumption come from. You can’t just… say things in an argument and hope I just magically change my mind. You have to convince me with logic and evidence from trustworthy sources (in this scenario since we’ve both cited the Bible I think we can include that as a trustworthy source).

To your other point - God didn’t create evil. He created free will. He allowed us (and Satan for that matter) to choose between good and evil. And Satan and humanity chose evil. 

Also throughout your posts you keep calling God genocidal. Again another claim without evidence. Please cite a source.

Either way, Jesus loves you and it’s never to late to love Him back.

#41
greensticks
greensticks's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 18
0
0
0
greensticks's avatar
greensticks
0
0
0
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
You said:

Pathetic piece of moral garbage.

It is never good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. You know this.

Jesus calls upon us to carry our crosses and follow him. But you would rather ride him as your scape goat.

And hominem attack aside, I’ll try to respond to your points.

Anyway I’m assuming the claim you’re making is that Jesus taking the punishment for our sins is immoral because He’s innocent and we’re guilty. And you know what? I can see why you’d say that.
 
But here’s the difference: Jesus isn’t just some random dude that God found on the street and just decided “I’m gonna punish this guy for everyone else’s sins.” 

No Jesus IS GOD. And Jesus…
“…being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant… he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross.”(Philippians 2:6-8)
This verse basically says that Jesus CHOSE to take our punishment EVEN THOUGH He was innocent and didn’t have to. That’s not immoral that’s LOVE. 

Also when Jesus says to take up your cross he’s not telling us to take responsibility for our sins. In fact the bible tells us that:
“He was pierced for our transgressions… the punishment that brought us peace was upon him.”
(Isaiah 53:5)
In other words, the punishment for our sins IS on Jesus - that’s not a stretch or misinterpretation, it’s the literal intent of the Biblical text. 

When Jesus tells us to take up our crosses he’s not telling us to take responsibility for our own sins. Instead he’s using the cross (known widely back then as a brutal and humiliating method of Roman execution) as a way to ask us to sacrifice every aspect of our lives in the pursuit of following Jesus. For evidence here’s that verse in context:
“Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭16‬:‭24‬-‭25‬ ‭
Also it’s worth noting that Jesus used the “take up your cross” line BEFORE He was crucified and not after, meaning that the disciples wouldn’t have known that the cross had anything to do with sin. Rather they would’ve interpreted the phrase in the way I have above.

Anyways I’m not just writing these responses because it’s fun (I mean it is fun but that’s beside the point) I’m writing them so that you, or anyone else reading this thread, might actually read my arguments with an open mind and even if you’re not completely convinced, hopefully I give you something to think about. 

Jesus loves you and it’s never too late to love him back.
#42
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 410
2
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
2
2
3
-->
@greensticks
You lucky little immoral fool. Nothing quite like being loved by a genocidal prick of a God.
#43
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 9,067
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
Jesus absorbed the sins of the Jews who demanded he be crucified. Had he not been crucified he could have absorbed the sins of the 6 million Jews who died during the Holocaust. Imaging the burden he carried when you consider the sins of the rest of the world.
#44
greensticks
greensticks's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 18
0
0
0
greensticks's avatar
greensticks
0
0
0
-->
@Shila
…. What? 

What you’re saying makes no sense. Jesus’s forgiveness isn’t limited to one time period or one ethnicity. Jesus died for the sins of all people for all time. in fact the bible says: 
“He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”
— 1 John 2:2
Also Shila im genuinely curious: where do you get your theology from? Are you Christian (if so are you Catholic? Orthodox? Protestant? Something else)? Gnostic? Jewish? Mormon? Muslim? Atheist?

#45
greensticks
greensticks's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 18
0
0
0
greensticks's avatar
greensticks
0
0
0
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop, I understand that there are some specific examples that people bring up to claim that the Christian God is “genocidal.” I’d love it if you could provide me with whichever example bothers you the most and we can talk about it.

However we can’t have a rational conversation if you keep hurling insults at me and my religion. It doesn’t allow us to talk about the real underlying philosophical issues that you seem to have a problem with and it also kinda just makes you look bad.

I’d be ecstatic if you could come back to the debate with an open mind and some citations.
#46
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 410
2
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
2
2
3
-->
@Shila
Imaginary drivel. 

It is immoral of you to abdicate your responsibility for your sins, not that you fucking care, immoral piece of human garbage.

Put your moral brain in gear. 
#47
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 410
2
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
2
2
3
-->
@greensticks
I would love to have an actual debate.
I love to lose debates so that I can learn something new.

I will not debate with you if you have not read the Bible and noticed that Yahweh is genocidal.

Why did Moses tell Yahweh to stick his Promised land?

Moses was tired of smashing baby's heads against stones for God.
#48
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 14,386
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@greensticks
Religion is as religion does and archaeology is as archaeology does. And neither is a necessary requirement of the other.

And the only holes in my heart are the ones that the blood flows through (Hopefully).

And yep, if Mary was pregnant then she wasn't a virgin, because  I doubt very much that IVF was commonplace back in the day.

You're taught non-sense and you believe non-sense....Same as any one who follows any religion...Doesn't matter which religion that archaeologists have been digging up the most...It's the way it goes.

Which isn't to say that other  more logical super-intelligence hypotheses aren't worthy of secondary consideration...But not magic.
#49
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 9,067
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
This is why they want to ban abortions so other virgin births can be confirmed.
#50
greensticks
greensticks's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 18
0
0
0
greensticks's avatar
greensticks
0
0
0
-->
@zedvictor4
I literally dont understand what your first sentence is saying but I'll try to respond to what I think it says anyway.

Religion and archaeology are actually inextricably combined - especially from a christian perspective. We're able to say with confidence that Jesus died on that cross because we have thousands of ancient manuscripts. Im not claiming that archeology definitively proves Christianity, but its never rebutted it either. in fact, every subsequent archeological discovery related to the Bible seems to further the reliability of the biblical authors more and more.

to your second point, admittedly the "hole in your heart" argument is pretty weak because its subjective and can't empirically be proved, but I included it because it resonated with me personally. 

to your third point, we Christians consider the virgin birth to be a miracle. you keep saying "well that doesnt happen naturally." like, yeah bro thats kinda the entire point of miracles, they dont happen naturally. if you have a problem with the concept of miracles as a whole, then thats a valid point and you should make that separately but I dont know why you keep singling out the miracle of the virgin birth specifically.

also it DOES matter what archaeologists are digging up because christianity makes HISTORICAL claims, not just metaphysical ones. when studying history theyre what we call "sources" and they inform us of what happened. dismissing archeological evidence in a debate about religion simply because the debate is about religion is essentially the same as dismissing archeological evidence in any other historical debate. I understand that I havent provided you with any specific archaeological evidence for the sake of brevity, but it's there and I can provide it if you're skeptical. however, im not an expert in the subject, and I would suggest you go online and check out Wesley Huff, a scholar who specializes in ancient Christian sources and how they provide evidence for the gospel narrative
#51
greensticks
greensticks's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 18
0
0
0
greensticks's avatar
greensticks
0
0
0
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
I've genuinely tried to engage with your arguments in good faith with specific citations and careful reasoning and yet you respond by using ad hominem attacks and repeating arguments (that are sometimes sexist) with no evidence to back them. When you're ready to do the same I'm happy to continue. Until then I don't think this conversation is going anywhere productive.
#52
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 14,386
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@greensticks
Religion  is a  notional creation and existence hypothesis, whereas archaeology is a broad academic exercise that attempts to scientifically understand the recent past.

 Archaeology is scientific and  fact driven and tests hypotheses as such,  whereas religion  is based solely upon the suppositional notion of a divine and usually humanesque entity...So archaeology will never find god, though it might shed some light upon people and events and will inevitably include religion, given the nature of human social history.

There are other earth and cosmological sciences,  such as palaeontology, geology and astrophysics that look way beyond the briefness of human involvement for answers to the question of creation and existence.



We Christians consider  the virgin birth to be a miracle.

Yeah bro, consideration is about the strength of it.

And just like I cannot substantiate the existence of trifle monsters on planet custard, you Christians cannot substantiate the the circumstances surrounding the nature of a pregnancy that occurred over 2000 years ago...So consider we must...Notwithstanding, that both you and I know how pregnancies actually occur.

And gospel narratives are...No Wesley required...Though what gospel narratives are is clear to me and necessary for you...Because you are a conditioned believer and I am conditioned to be sceptical.
#53
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 410
2
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
2
2
3
-->
@greensticks
That is what happens when one is factual instead of sexist.

If I an wrong, show the wrong instead of stupid accusatioins.
#54
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 9,067
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
Mary’s virgin birth is factual. Even her soon to be husband Joseph accepted it and married her after he conceived Jesus.
#55
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 14,386
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
Ah, new spin.

So Joseph conceived Jesus.

Now that is pushing the bounds of divine intervention.

Though daft Joe would have believed anything.


And Mary's virgin birth is about as factual as  trifle monsters on planet custard.

What we can say for sure, is that if a relative biblical character referred to as Mary gave birth to a corresponding son named as Jesus, then approximately 9 months prior to the birth some bloke penetrated and ejaculated into a fecund vagina thereby initiating gamete fusion.

That's the way it was , as you well know.
#56
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 410
2
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
2
2
3
-->
@Shila
Factual in a myth? How stupid do you want to be?
#57
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 9,067
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
Joseph remained married to Mary even after she conceived Jesus. He too was told by an angel about the virgin birth.
#58
GnosticChristianBishop
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 410
2
2
3
GnosticChristianBishop's avatar
GnosticChristianBishop
2
2
3
-->
@Shila
Your supernatural belief is noted and you are thus correct in all you say of it.

Adore your Mother Fucker of a God. May you one day create your own Father to engage with. 

If you wish to chat on the immorality in the messianic ideas, I am here to guide discus those, otherwise, please ignore me and my sympathy for your fiction believing mind. 
#59
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 14,386
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
I'm guessing khat or hashish were daft Joe's and loose Mary's drug of choice...Given all the free love and angels  that were going down at the time
#60
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 9,067
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
The love is not free, it comes with a commitment.